They didn't bring the permit and it took them 30 minutes to produce it and by then the team decided not to stay. The police and the jerks who wouldn't yield the field, I think, followed the rule, which was first come first served unless you have and show a permit.

The people in question were being Karens is what they were doing.

I think you all are missing the fact that those teams had to play in the public park because their previous location to play has been transformed into a refugee camp, as per article.

That's one of the severe quality of life losses for normal people happening with open borderism + welfare that microbet and his team deny happen.

They took something which was used by citizens and long term residents to give to the new entrants, as it happens all the times when you have welfare for immigrants.

Microbet focuses on the fact that those Africans had a right to freedom to enter the USA.

He always changes subject when the topic becomes "but we don't owe them any resource at all" yet scarce resources are taken from the people who paid taxes (or their ancestors did) to build and maintain them and given to people who never contributed to them.

It's morally horrific to justify those actions (taking stuff violently from the people who paid for it to give it to strangers) because they have nothing to do with freedom to begin with

Did it happen as described? Not reading NYP ****.

Taxes on profits accumulated from the lucrative business of owning African slaves, ultimately.

All natural resources (like land) are just taken. No one or their ancestor's created them.

Lucium,

If you really were a libertarian your position on welfare would be that taxes are theft. The government is a thief. If someone steals from you and gives what they stole to someone else as a gift, it's not moral for you to hire someone to shoot the person who receives the gift.

But, you're an authoritarian bootlicking fascist and not a libertarian.

99%+ of american wealth has been built after slavery abolition

You seem to think the only possible libertarian position is anarchocapitalism.

I understand why you think so:

1) kids which expose those ideas (now in crypto, yesterday in poker) tend to gravitate towards that

2) american libertarianism often gravitates toward that

European libertarianism doesn't, it could also be described as classic liberalism (with modern connotations), or minarchism. It accepts there is no option without a state (power vacuum always get filled), it's a disgusting necessary evil to have a state.

The government is the mafia mob you choose to pay among many mobs for protection because you cannot not choose: if you don't the mafia mob other people pay, kills you and your family.

Inside a framework where the state has necessarily to exist (and be kept in check all the times) you take all other considerations.

If Yu want to call everyone in favour of law enforcement fascist do that but do it to every poster who is in favour of law enforcement existing, or It becomes evident you just dislike me and your arguments are simply ridiculous.

It's not fascism to want law enforcement to enforce property rights.

Oh the power of compound interest.

Lol, of industrialization (which came after slavery)

European libertarianism is Anarchism. The term was coined by an Anarchist newspaper that put libertarian in the title because Anarchism was illegal.

Then think of me of pre-progressive liberalism (circa 1830 UK?), 1st duke of Wellington ideology

are you genuinely stating that everything in the USA today is due to slavery?

Of course not. Did I say that?

I thought it was heavily implied from your statements and you do hear that said a bit in some circles, but I guess you were just responding to luciom's "slavery never hurt anyone" stance

my apologies

No need for apology. It's a typical forum thing. If you forget to take the trouble to first state what you don't think people will make assumptions.

You claimed American current GDP is mostly caused by slavery being legal 150+ years ago

Everything <> mostly

Hm even higher, all American extra GDP vs most other civilized nations is due to slavery being legal 160 years ago?

So why is Brazil which banned slavery later a **** hole compared to the USA? Like the poorest state in the USA is far richer than Brazil?

Cheap arable land and immense natural resources?

Which exist in Brazil as well?

To the same degree? The climates aren't the same for a start and Brazil doesn't have the Texas oil fields, while the rainforest isn't arable.

Brazil's problem was that it became independent later and the whole country (the populated parts) was a plantation. USA had a better start because of many reasons, but included among them are an earlier independence and a large industrial sector (which was protected by the protectionism of Alexander Hamilton) in addition to wealth from the plantations and slavery.

Ye so Brazil only had the slaves, USA had other stuff, and what made the USA far richer was entirely the other stuff, plantations with slaves are what kept it restrained until they gave up on it and they became actually rich.